Ap pe lla nt Phi lli p A. Di c k is the mot he r o f R oo se ve lt H utc hin s, Jr. T he re c or d r e fl e c ts tha t, 1 wh ile fr om t ime to t ime sh e sig ns he r na me “ Mr s. Phi lli p A . D ic k, ” the ma jor ity of he r f ili ng s b oth in the district court and in this Court, including her noti ce of appea l and appellant’s brief , as we ll as notarized aff

idavits are sig ned simply

“Phillip A. Dick.” 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00783- CV

P hill ip A . D ic k, A ppe lla nt

v. Der ek Batem an and Travis County District Cle rk, Crim inal Divi sion, Ap pellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 261ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. GN503030 , HO NORAB LE DARLENE B Y RNE, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Phillip A. Dick, pr o s e , bring s this appeal fr om a t ake nothing summary judgme nt gr anted in fa

vor of a ppellees Dere k Bateman and Travis Count y District Clerk, Criminal Division. The suit alleg ed neg lige nt misreprese ntation on the part of a ppellees in the c reation of the criminal re cords of

Roosevelt Hutchins, J r.—appe llant’s son. We affir m. 1 On Marc h 3, 1993, Roosevelt Hutchins, J r. plea ded g uilty to delivery

of a simulated

c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e in c a us e nu mbe r 0 93 09 28

. He wa s se nte nc e d to six mon ths in ja il, bu t T ra vis County r e c o r d s s h o w th a t h e w a s r e le a s e d f r o m T r a v is Co u n ty D e l V a ll e Co r r e c ti o n a l F acility

at midnight on April 2, 1993. Police re cords show tha t on May 14, 1993, Hutch i n s was a rre sted forHutchins was a named plaintiff along with a ppellant in the trial court. B eca use Hutchins 2 did not file a notice of

appea l in this case , he is not a par ty to this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1. 2 possession of coc aine. I n a September 1993 jury

trial in cause n u m b er 0 9 3 2 8 2 1 , Hutchins was convicted of possession of coc aine a nd sentenc ed to fiftee n y ear s’ imprisonment. I n 1994, this Court aff irmed his conviction in cause number 0932821. See H utchins v. State, N o . 0 3

- 9 3

- 0 0 5 8 4

- CR ( T e x. App.—Austin October

26, 1994, no pet.) (pe r cur iam). I n Aug ust 2005, D ick sued a ppellees f or neg lige nt misreprese ntation in the cre ation of Hutchins’s c riminal rec ords conc erning his May 1993 arr est and c onviction for coc aine po sse ssi on . Di ck a lle g e d th a t H utc hin s h a d n e ve r b e e n r e le a se d f ro m T ra vis County

De l V a lle 2 Correc tional Fac ility

on April 2, 1993, and that Bateman, an e mploy ee at the Travis County Criminal J ustice F iles, Records/Sear ch De partment, ha d cr ea ted fa lse rec ords of the Ma y 1993 arr est and conviction for coca ine possession a s a way of keeping Hutchins in prison. Dick soug ht $150 mill ion in punitive damag es as we ll as Hutchins’s re lease from prison.

The a ppellees move d for summary judgme nt on sever al g rounds, including that Dick lacke d standing to sue conc erning an alleg ed injury to her son, that the statute of limit ations barr ed Dick’s neg lige nt misreprese ntation claims, and that Dick ha d not produce d any evidenc e supporting her c laims of neg lige nt misre prese ntation. On Novembe r 10, 2005, the trial c ourt g rante d summary j u d gm en ti n fa v o r o f a

p p el l ee s wi t h o u ts t at i n g a b as i s fo r t h e r u l i n g. We reviewthe summary

judgme nt de novo. J

oe v . Two Thirt

y Nin e J oin t V e ntu re , 14 5 S. W.3 d 1 50 , 1 56 (T e x. 20 04 ). To pr e va il on a moti on fo r sum mary jud g me nt, the mov a nt m us t show that no g enuine issue of material fa ct exist s and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of3

law. Se e Pr ov ide nt Life & Ac c ide nt I ns . Co . v . Kn ott , 1 2 8 S. W. 3 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 7 ( T e x. 2 0 0 4 ) ( c it in g T e x. R. Civ. P . 166a (c )). B eca use the district cour

t’s order g ranting summary

judgme nt does not specify the basis for the ruling , we will aff irm the summary

judgme nt if any

of the theor ies prese nted to the trial court a

nd prese rved f

or appe llate re view is meritorious. Id. Ap pe lle e s a sse rt e d in the ir su mma ry jud g me nt mot ion tha

t D ic k la c ke d s tand ingto

su e fo r c la ims of

ne g lig e nt m isr e pr e se ntatio n c on c e rn inghe r s on ’s c ri min a l f ile . St a nd ingis a p r e r e qu is it e to th e tr ia l c o u r t’ s s u b je c t- matt e r ju

r is d ic ti o n. See T

exas As s’ n o

f B us . v . Te

x as Ai r Control Bd. , 852 S.W .2d 440, 443-44 (Te x . 1993). A pe rson has standing if: (1) he has sustained, or is immediately

in dang er of sustaining, some dire ct injury as a r esult of the def

endant’ s wrong ful act; (2) he has a dire ct re lationship between the alleg ed injury and the c laim being adjudicate d; (3) he ha s a pe rs on a l st a ke in t

he c on tr ov e rs y ; ( 4) the c ha lle ng e d a c tio n h a s ca us e d h im s ome inj ur

y in fa c t, ei the r ec on omi c , re c re a tio na l, en vir on me nta l, or oth e rw ise ; or (5 ) h e is a n a pp ro pr ia te pa

rt y to

a s s e rt th e p u

b li c ’ s in te r e s t in th e matt e r , a s w e ll a s h is o w n . N a u slar v. Coors Brewing Co. , 170 S.W .3d 242, 249 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pe t.).

I n this case, Dic k lacks standing to sue for i n j uries to Hutchins re sulting fr om the alleg ed neg lige nt misreprese ntation conce rning Hutchins’s cr iminal recor ds. The re cord shows tha t Dick has not a lleg ed that she h as s u s tained any direc t injury

from the a lleg ed neg lige nt misrepre sentation. I nstead, she a lleg ed in her pleading s that “Plaintiff Hutchins is innocent locke d

a wa y in T e xas S tate Pr iso n H ug he s U nit fo r a c ri me Pla int if

f H utc hin s d id n ot c omm it” a s a re su lt of B ateman’ s “fa lsify ing c riminal rec ord s, files, dates, a nd documents.” She a lso alleg ed that H u t c h i n s h a s b e e n s u

b j e c t e d t o r a c i s m a n d h a s r e c e i v e d d e a t h t h r e a t s w h i l e i n c a r c e r a te d. Th e seDi c k a lso la c ks sta nd ing to su e a s a

re pr e se ntativ e of

Hu tc hin s b e c a

us e , a lth ou g h D ic k is 3 the pa re nt o f H utc hin s, Hu tc hin s is of the a g e of

ma jor ity a nd is n ot i nc a

paci tat e d o r o the rw ise incapa ble of re prese nting himself. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 44.

4 c la ims , a t mo st, a lle g e inj ur y to Hu tc hin s. Di c k do e s no t a lle g e that sh e ha s su sta ine d a ny inj ur y , is in dang er of

su s t ai n ing a

ny injury , has any

rela tionship t o the alleg ed injury and the c laim to be

a dju dic a te d , h a s a p e r s o n a l s t a k e i n t h e c o n t r o v e r s y , o r t h a t s h e i s a n a p p r o p r i a t e p a rt y t o a s s e r t a public interest in this matter. She does not alleg e the br eac h of any leg al duty

or injury with respec t to he r. Dick lacks standing to pr osecute the claims in this case . See Nauslar, 170 S.W .3d at 249. 3 Affir med.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Waldrop Affir med Filed: September

8, 2006